Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:13:34 01/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 1998 at 17:11:14, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >At 5 seconds a move on a Pentium 133mhz I get 217 out of 300. >Not great, I know. Your result is impressive. What release number >of Crafty will this be? this is version 14.4, released today... Just for fun I ran at 5 secs/move, but on my P5/233 notebook, and got 274 right, although this is a good bit faster than your P5/133... > >On January 12, 1998 at 15:04:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I have just finished cleaning everything up, relative to the null-move >>mate extension and hash table refinement discussed here. As a sanity >>check, I decided to once again run win at chess at one minute per move >>to see how Crafty would do on my Pentium Pro 200. The best for an >>"official" version has been 297, with it typically staying around 295 >>or so. >> >>here is the "crosstable" for version 14.4: >> >> 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 >> +------------------------------------------------------------ >> 1 | 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 44 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 >> 2 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 15 0 >> 3 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 54 0 0 10 >> 4 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 >> 5 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 >> 6 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >> 7 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 >> 8 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 >> 9 | 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 57 0 >>10 | 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 -- 0 0 0 >>11 | 0 0 0 14 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 >>12 | 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 >>13 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 33 >>14 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>15 | 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 >>16 | 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 >>17 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 16 >>18 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 >>19 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>20 | 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 >>incorrect: 163 230 >>sum of times(squared)=46689 >> >>The bottom line is Crafty v14.4 misses two (163 and 230) in one minute >>per move. 163 is solved in 1 minute on an alpha/500, but takes just >>over a couple of minutes on the P6/200. 230 I don't know about, but I >>think it will take longer than that, as on the alpha Crafty still did >>not get it last time I tried. >> >>Other interesting trivia. With a limit of 30 seconds, it misses an >>additional 6 on the P6/200, although on the alpha/500 it still gets >>these right but does then mist 163. >> >>So the simple results are: >> >> time/move 15 30 60 >> correct (P6) 287 292 298 >> correct (alpha) 294 298 299 >> >>Which represents the best results I have gotten so far, discounting >>Cray Blitz of course. Cray blitz solves 297 of 300 in < 1 second >>(as I have mentioned, that program times to the nearest second and >>reports times of 0 for 297 of the positions). It takes 1 second (or >>a little more, but not 2 seconds) to solve 230, 92 and 222. But this >>test was run on a *big* Cray and averaged about 5M nodes per second for >>the entire test suite, which burned 32 processors pretty well. :) >> >>For the two I miss now, 163 is the easier to solve, and simply needs a >>bit more speed. Null-move and razoring adversely affect some of these >>positions, as I have solved some of them quicker in the past. >> >>Sorry, but I don't have any times for a PII/300 yet, although we do have >>one. My P5/233mmx notebook misses two more, as it is some 15% slower >>than my P6/200. >> >>Any other results to compare with? Be interesting to see who solves >>what quickly and who has trouble with what. I'm going to experiment >>with the chess middlegame suite Bruce mentioned. The only thing I don't >>like is the length of time it takes to run a suite that large...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.